B 
.6^ 




LETTER 



ALBERT G. BROWN, 



TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 



FkliowCitizevs: I feel impelled, by a strong 
dense of duty, to address to you this communica- 
don. If it shall seem to you more appropriate that I 
should have delivered the sentiments which follow, 
in the form of a speech in the House of Repre- 
sentatives, I reply, that the difficulty of obtaining 
':he floor interposes at all times serious obstacles 
"o that mode of address. At this period of excite- 
ment, when events of the greatest consequence are 
[pursuing each other in rapid succession, it appears 
"o me neither wise nor safe to risk the doubtful 
ciiances of an early opportunity of addressing you 
through the ordinary medium of a congressional 
speech . 

Events of the utmost magnitude are transpiring 
at the seat of the National Government. Ih these 
ayente you have a deep interest, and I would not 
I-eave you a single day in ignorance of rny views, 
or in doubt as to the manner in which I mean to 
discharge the high and important trusts which 
your partiality has devolved upon me. 

It is well known to you, that the people in Cali- 
fornia, following the lead of General Riley, an 
officer of the United States army stationed in that 
country, took upon themselves, during the last 
summer, the responsible task of forming a State 
constitution, and setting up a State government in 
;hat territory. 

This proceeding has been extensively criticised, 
and very generally condemned, as altogether 
anomalous and irregular. It is no part of tny pres- 
ent purpose to follow up these criticisms. That 
i;he whole proceeding was irregular and in total 
disregard of the rights of the South, i.s beyond 
dispute. That it was basely fraiiduknt, I have «ver 
believed, and do now belir.ve. That the people in 
that country were j)ronipted to the course pursued 
by them, by the secret spies and agents sent out 
from Washington, I have never doubted for a 



single moment. That they were induced to insert 
the " Wilmot proviso," in their so-called State 
constitution, by assurances held out to them that 
such a course would facilitate their admission into 
the Union of these States, I as religiously beliere 
as I do in the existence of an overruling Provi- 
dence. 

Pursuing the idea that there had been illegitimate 
influences at work to produce particular results in 
California, I on two several occasions introduced 
into the House of Representatives resolutions 
directing a searching inquiry into all the facta. 
But the dominant p©wer would give no counte- 
nance to my object. 

I have seen it stated in a letter written in Cali- 
fornia, and published in the Republic newspaper 
in this city, that " it was everywhere understood 
in that country, that the President desired the 
people of California to settle the slavery question 
for themselves." I endeavored to bring the public 
mind to bear on this point, and in a card published 
in the Republic, I inquired " how it came to be 
everywhere thus understood;" but no response 
was ever made to the inquiry. The semi-official 
declaration, however, quickened my suspicions that 
some one had spoken as by authority for the Presi- 
dent. 

Thomas Butler King, esq., one of the Presi- 
dent's agents in California, has repeatedly de- 
clared that the California Convention was held 
under the sanction of President Polk and Secreta- 
ries Buchanan and Marcy; and that it was to 
these functionaries General Riley made allusion 
when he said to the people in that country that he 
was acting in compliance with the views of (he 
President, and the Secretaries of War and of State. 
Mr. Polk is dead, and the two ex-Secretarie« 
positively deny the truth of Mr, King's declara- 
tioa, 



£4^3 



If General Riley stated officially to the people 
of California, on the 3d of June, 1849, the date of 
his proclamation, that the President, the Secre- 
tary of War, and the Secretary of State approved 
his conduct — meaning thereby Mr. Polk, Mr. 
Buchanan, and Mr. Marcy — it was a fraud upon 
the people of California. The statement could 
only have been made with a view to give the 
highest official .sanction to his conduct, and he knew i 
perfectly well that all three of the gentlemen allu- i 
ded to, were private citizens at the date of his 
proclamation. When he said the President, he 
meant to give the weight of presidential influence 
to his acts. He meant that the people should un- 
derstand him as alluding to the man in power, 
and not to a retired gentleman and private citizen. 

Mr. King undertakes to prove that he is right 
in his declaration, and asserts that the steamer 
which carried him to California was the first arri- 
val in that country after General Taylor "s inaugu- 
ration, and ^^ that she conveyed the first intelligence 
that Congress had failed to provide a government for 
that territory;^' and by way of giving point to his 
declaration in this respect, he asserts that he landed 
for the first time at San Francisco, on the 4th day 
of June; that General Riley was then at Monterey, 
distant about one hundred and fifty miles, and 
that he (Mr. King) did not see him, (Riley,) or 
have any communication with him; and that the 
proclamation, calling the California Convention, 
bore date June 3d, 1849. Thus rendering it im- 
possible, as he assumed, that said proclamation 
could have been based on information received from 
the present President and his Secretaries through 
his, Mr. King's arrival. Unfortunately for the 
accuracy of these statements and the legitimacy 
of the conclusions. General Riley commences his 
proclamation with the emphatic declaration " that 
Congress had failed to provide a government for 
Cfilifornia;" and the inquiry at once arises, how, 
if Mr. King landed at San Francisco on the 4th of 
June, 1849, with the ^rst intelligence of this failure 
on the part of Congress, could General Riley have 
known and proclaimed the important fact at Mon- 
terey, distant one hundred and fifty miles, on the 
3d of June of that year ? We see at once that it 
could not be so. 

President Polk and hia Cabinet could not have 
eent advice to California of this failure on the part 
of Congress; for it is historically true that the fail- 
ure occurred in the very last hour of Mr. Polk's 
administrution. 

Through some channel. General Riley was ad- 
vised that Congress had failed to provide a govcrn- 
roent for California, and this after President Taylor 
came ;into power. 1 do not say that Mr. King 



was this channel, but I do say that from the same 
medium through which he derived the information 
that Congress had failed to provide a government, 
he may, and probably did , receive also the views of 
the President and his Cabinet, and hence he was 
enabled to speak as he did with positive certainty 
of the one and of the other. 

" You are fully possessed," says the Secretary 
of State, Mr. Clayton, to Mr. King, in a letter 
bearing date of April 3, 1849, " You are fully pos- 
' sessed of the President's views, and can with 
' propriety suggest to the people of California the 
' ADOPTION of measures best calculated to give them 
♦ eftect. These measures must, of course, origi- 
' nale solely with themselves." Mr. King, then, 
was informed that he could with propriety suggest 
the adoption of measwes to carry out the Presi- 
dent's views, he having been fully possessed of 
those views. But these measures must originate 
with the people! Beautiful! Mr. King is sent 
to California to suggest to the people the adoption 
o( measures to carry out the President's views, but 
these measures must originate with the people! 
And more beautiful still, Mr. King comes home, 
after disburdening himself of the views whereof 
he was " fully possessed," and gravely tells the 
country he did not go to California on a political 
mission, and had nothing to do with the local 
affairs of that country; and this, too, after he was 
denounced in the Convention as the President's 
emissary. I suspect Mr. King could tell how it 
came to be "everywhere understood in California 
that the President wanted the people to settle the 
slavery question for themselves." 

I have thought proper to present these facts and 
deductions, for the purpose of showing you that 
mine are no idle suspicions. When I say that, in 
my opinion, a great fraud has been perpetrated, I 
want you to understand that there is some founda- 
tion for my opinion. 

The action of Congress, I am free to admit, may 

have had much to do in fixing the sentiment in the 

mind of the President and of the Californians, that 

no territorial government would be allowed which 

did not contain the Wilmot proviso; and judging 

: from the temper constantly displayed in urging this 

] odious measure at all times and in all seasons, it was, 

I grant, a rational conclusion that no government 

I asked for or establisiied by the people would be 

I tolerated unless slavery was prohibited; but was 

this a sufficient reason why the President or his 

agents, or even the people of California, sliould 

trample under foot the rights of the South i We 

had our rights in that country, and they ought to 

have been respected; I risk nothing in saying that 

' they would have been, had we been the stronger 



uts-Ba i 



ir.iif 



8 



party. Our fault consisted in our weakness, and 
for Ihia we were ■sacrificed. 

It is said, I know, that California is not suited 
to slave labor — that the soil, climate, the very 
elements themselves, are opposed to it. Slave labor 
is never more profitably employed than in mining; 
fsnd you may judge whether slaves could be 
advantageously introduced into that country, when 
i inform you, on the authority of the debates of 
:heir convention, thatan able-bodied negro is worth 
in California from two to six thousand dollars per 
annwni. 

I pass over the studied and systematic resistance 
which the California admissionists have constantly 
.^nd steadily interposed against all investigation, 
with this single remark — " that the wicked flee 
when no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold 
as a lion." 

Imraediaiely after the assembling of the present 
Congress, it became apparent that the admission 
of Califoraia into the Union as a State was to be- 
^ome the great question of the session ; and it was 
palpable from the beginning, that there was a large 
majority in favor of it. The President was not 
5I0W in taking his position. He brought the sub- 
ject to the/avoraftknoticeof Congress in his annual 
.message, and very soon after, in a special commu- 
nication, he earnestly recommended it to our favor- 
able consideration. The fearful odds of the Presi- 
dent, the Cabinet, and a congressional majority, 
was arrayed again.st us; but, nothing daunted, a 
few of us, relying on the justice of our cause, and 
placing our trust in the intelligence, virtue, patriot- 
ism, and indomitable firmness and courage of our 
constituents, resolved to resist it. 

To lay before you the grounds of that resistance, 
and to lay bare the sophistry and double-dealing 
of the friends of this measure, are among the chief 
aims of this letter. 

A large class of those who advocate the imme- 
diate introduction of California into the Union, 
place their advocacy on the ground that the people 
have a right in all oases to govern themselves, and 
10 regulate their domestic concerns in their own 
way. It becomes important to understand the 
'.meaning of declarations like these, and to ascertain 
the extent to which such doctrines may be right- 
fully extended. 

I admit the right of self-government; I admit 
that every people may regulate their domestic 
affairs in their own way; I freely and fully admit 
the doctrine that a people finding themselves in a 
country without laws, may make laws for them- 
selves, and to suit themselves. But in doing this 
'hey must take care not to infringe the rights of 
■ihe owners and proprietors of the soil. If, for ex- 



ample, one hundred or one thousand American 
citizens should find themselves thrown on an 
island belonging to Great Britain, uninhabited and 
without laws, such citizens, from the very neces- 
sity of their position, would have a right to make 
laws for themselves. But in doing this, they 
would have no right to say to her Majesty's sub- 
jects in Scotland, you may come to this island with 
your property, and to her Irish subjects, you shall 
not come with your property. They would have 
no right to setlheproprietorsat defiance, or to make 
insulting discriminations between proprietors hold- 
ing one species of property and those owning another 
species of property. No such power would be at all 
necessary to their self-government, and any attempt 
to exercise it would justly be regarded as an im- 
pertinent attempt to assume the supreme power, 
when in fact they were mere tenants at will. 

If the people of California, who had been left by 
the unwise and grossly unjust non-action of Con- 
gress, without law and without government, had 
confined themselves to making their own laws and 
regulating their own domestic affairs in their own 
way, I certainly never should have raised my 
voice against their acts. But when they go further, 
and assume the right to say what shall be the priv- 
ileges of the owners and proprietors of the soil — 
when they takeupon themselves to say to the fifteen 
northern States, your citizens may come here with 
their property, and to the fifteen southern States, 
your citizens shall not come here with their property, 
they assume, in my judgment, a power which 
does not belong to them, and perform an act to 
which the South, if she would maintain her rights, 
ought not to submit. 

Attempts have been made to draw a parallel 
between the conduct of our revolutionary fathers, 
who claimed the right to legislate independent of 
the British Crown, and that of the Californiana, 
who have assumed to set up an independent gov- 
ernment of their own. When our fathers set up 
an independent Government, they called it revolu- 
tion; and if the people in California set up a like 
Government, I know of no reason w-hy their con- 
duct shall not in like manner be denominated rev- 
olutionary. Our fathers revolted and took the 
consequences; California has a right to do the same 
thing; but that she has any other than a.revolulion- 
ary right, I utterly deny. 

Very distinguished men have assumed the posi- 
tion, that the rights of sovereignty over the terri- 
tory reside in the people of the territory, even 
during their territorial existence. Let us test the 
soundness of this theory by a few practical appli- 
cations. The expression " the people of a terri- 
tory" is one of very uncertain signification as to 



rk 



E4XZ 



numbers. It may mean one hundred thousand, or 
it may mean one thousand or one hundred. The 
question naturally presents itself, when does this 
right of Bovereignty commence? 1? it with the 
first man who reaches the territory ? May he pre- 
■cribe rules and regulations for those who come 
after him ? or must there be a thousand or fifty 
thousand , or a greater or a less number, before the 
rights of sovereignty attach ? 

Perhaps we are told that the sovereignty begins 
when the people assemble to make laws. Very 
■well; let us put this theory into practical operation. 
Ten thousand French emigrants have settled, let 
us suppose, al the base of thp Rocky Mountains, 
without the limits of any organized State or Terri- 
tory of the United States, and they are without 
government or laws. They make laws for them- 
selves, and you acquiesce; they set up a govern- 
ment for themselves, and you admit their right; 
they claim the sovereignty over the territory and 
set up an independent State government, and you 
admit their power to do so. You expect them to 
ask admission into the Union, but the new sover- 
eignty says no, we prefer independence, or we 
prefer to become an integral part of the French Re- 
public. What will you do under such circum- 
stancee? Can you force her to abandon her ac- 
knowledged independence ? Can you force her 
into the Union against her will ? What ! require 
a sovereign to pursue your will and not her own ? 
This would indeed be revolution. 

If California is in fact, as she is admitted by 
some to be in theory, an independent sovereignty, 
1 see nothing which is to prevent her remaining 
out of the Union if she elects to do so. I see 
nothing which may prevent her, if she chooses, 
allying herself to any other nation or country. I 
know of no right by which this Government may 
take from her the independence, the sovereignty 
•which she now possesses, if indeed she be a State 
without the Union. 

The tenure by which wc hold our territorial 
possession is indeed most fragile, if this doctrine of 
territorial sovereignty can be maintained. We 
may expend millions of treasure, and pour out 
rivers of our purest and best blood in the acquisi- 
tion of territories, only to see them taken posses 
sion of, and ourselves turned out, by the first in- 
terloper who may chance to plant his foot upon 
Ihcm. 

I am always glnd of an opportunity to do the 
fullest justice to n political opponent, and in this 
spirit I beg leave to say, that, in my judgment, Mr. 
Clav, in u late spccrli in the Senate, took the true 
ground on this nubject. He denied that California 
was a Sltite, or that she rould become so out of 



the Union. He maintained the right of the peo- 
ple to self-government, but denie'd the validity or 
binding force of their written constitution, untiJ 
the State should be admitted into the Union. Will 
the reader recollect this, as I shall have occasior 
to use it in another connection. 

Let us pause for a moment to consider the hon- 
esty and sincerity of purpose with which the lofty 
pretension has been set up in certain quarters, that 
the people have a right to regulate, arrange, and 
mould their institutions to suit themselves. In the 
early part of last year, the people inhabiting a large 
portion of our unoccupied possessions in what was 
then known as New Mexico and California, met 
in convention and framed a State constitution, giv- 
ing the name of Deseret to their country. They 
defined their boundaries, and included within their 
limits a large extent of Pacific coast. Their con- 
stitution was in every element essentially republi- 
can. They sent their agent to Washington, with 
a modest request that the constitution thus formed 
should be accepted, and the State of Deeehet ad- 
mitted into the Union. How this application was 
treated we shall presently see. Later in the same 
year, the people of New Mexico formed a territo- 
rial government, and sent their delegate to Wash- 
ington to present their wishes, and, if permitted, to 
represent their interests. In the summer of the 
same year, and several months after the Deseret 
convention, the Californians held their convention. 
They extended their boundaries so as to monopo- 
lize the whole Pacific coast, in total disregard of 
the prior action of Deseret. And then in contempt 
of the modest example of her two neighbors, she 
sends, not an agent or a delegate ta Washington, 
with a civil request, but she sends up two Sena- 
tors and two Representatives, with a bold demand 
for instantaneous admission into the Union. 

What followed ? The President made two 
earnest appeals to Congress to admit California, 
and he told us plainly to leave the others to their 
fate. Not only does he fail to give them afrtendly 
salutation, but he in truth turns from them in 
scorn. Not a word does he utter in their behalf, 
or in defence of their independent conduct. Their 
modesty failed to commend them to his patcrna". 
notice. 

In Congress, and throughout the country, a gen- 
eral outcry is now heard in favor of Califarnia. 
Everywhere throughout the length and breadth of 
tiie land, the cry of California, glorious California, 
is heard. It comes to us from the East and from 
the West, from the North and ([ am pained to say") 
in some instances from the South. If any mar 
has dared to interpose the slightest objection to the 
immediate admis.sion of California— if any onf 



has hesitated about yielding to California all that 
she so boldly demands, he has been denounced, 
black-balled, hooted at, and almost driven from 
society. Mean time no voice has been heard in 
defence of the rights of New Mexico and Deseret. 
They, too, assumed to settle their own affairs 
in their own way. Vet no whisper of encourage- 
ment and hope greets their modest agent and dele 



eluded slavery, and sent two Senators and two 

Representatives to Wnehington. 

You will have no difficulty in determining in 
your own minds that I am opposed to allowing the 
people of the territories to settle this question, 
either for us or against us. It is a matter with 
which they have no concern. The Slates are 
equals and have equal rights, and whatever tend.? 



gate at Washington. The great national voice is ij to impair or break down that equality, always has 
engaged to sing and shout for California. Why | and always shall encounter my stern and inflexible 
has this been so ? Why this marked distinction { opposition. 

between these several parties? The people, we i| My position in reference to congressional action 
are told, have a right to act for themselves. Cali- jj on this subject is easily explained. I am for non- 
fomia acted for herself, Deseret for herself, and '' intervention— total, entire, unqua'ified non-inter- 



New Mexico for herself; and yet, amid the din ! 
and clamor in favor of California, we have lost 
sight of her more retiring and modest sisters. Why i 
is this ? I'll tell you, fellow-citizens. Deseret and 
New Mexico did not insult the South by excluding i 
.slavery. With a becoming modesty they were ■ 
silent on this subject. California, influenced by I 
unwisecounselsj flung defiance in your teeth, scoffed | 
at your rights, and boldly threw herself into the , 
arms of the North. Here is the secret of all this ■ 
boiling and bubbling in favor of California, and j 
here, too, may be found the end of the great j 
doctrine that the people may settle the slavery 1 
question for themselves. If they settle it against j 
the South it is well, and if they do not it is no set- i 
tlement at all. 

Ah! but we are told there is a vast difference | 
between these territories; New Mexico and Utah 
have but few inhabitants, and California has 
many thousand — some say one hundred thousand ' 
and some say two hundred thousand. I do not 
understand that because a people are fewer in 
number that therefore they have no political rights, 



vention. Leave the people of all the Slates free to 
go with their property of whatever kind , to the terri- 
tories, without let and without hindrance, and i 
am satisfied. But this I must say, that whenever 
Congress, undertakes to give protection to property 
in the territories, on the high seas, or anywhere 
else, there must be no insulting discrimination be- 
tween slave property and any other species of 
property. To say that Congress may protect the 
northern man's goods in California, but that Con- 
gress shall not protect the southern man's slaves, is 
intervenlion. It is intervening for the worst ends, 
and in the most insulting manner. 

You have been told, fellow-ciiizens, that we once 
said the people of a territory, when they come to 
make a State constitution, might settle the slave 
question for themselves, and that we have now 
abandoned that ground. Not so— I speak for my- 
self. I have always maintained, and I maintain 
to-day, that the people of a territory, when duly 
authorized to form a State constitution, may settle 
this and all other questions for themselves and ac- 
cording to their own inclinations. But was Cali- 
fornia duly authorized? Where did she get her 



whilst a greater number may have every right. 
But how stands the case in regard to these hundreds j: authority? We have been told that she got it frotrj 
of thousand of people in California? We all know J! the Almighty. This is very well if it is so. But 
that the emigration to that country has been j it would be more satisfactory to me to know that 
confined to hardy male adults, robust men. In j she got it from the proprietors of the soil, and that 
most cases their families and friends have been left > heraction had been subordinate to the Federal Con- 
in the States, to which, in four eases out of five, ' stitution. 
they themselves have intended to return. At the ,i I have no inclination to discuss this point at 



elections last summer they voted about twelve thou- 
sand, and later in the fall, on the important ques- 
tion of adopting a State constitution, with the 
ballot-box wide open and free for every vote, they 
polled less than thirteen thousand. I should like to 
know where the balance of this two hundred thou- 
sand were. At least one hundred and fifty thousand 
of them I suspect were never in the country, and 



length. Whenever it can be shown that California 
has been subjected to the same ordeal through 
which Mississippi, Arkansas, Florida, and other 
slaveholding States have been compelled to pass, 
1 will, if in Congress, vote for her admission 
into the Union, without a why or wherefore, as 
concerns slavery. But it is iisking of me a little 
too much to expect that I shall vote for her admis- 



the rest regarded the whole thing as a ridiculous i^ sion, underallthercmarkablecircumstancesattend- 
farce, with which they had nothing to do. And, ing her application, until she has passed this ordeal, 
this is the Slate and these the people who have ex- !; If it shall be shown that i am getting a fair 






6 



eguivlaent for surrendering your rights in Califor- 
nia, you may reasonably expect me, in your name, 
to favour a compromise. The great national mind 
wants repose, and I for one am ready for any 
arrangement which may atford a reasonable augu- 
ry of a happy adjustment of our difierences. 
This brings me to a brief review of Mr. Clay's 
so called compromise scheme. 

The leading bill presented by Mr. Clay from 
" the Committee of Thirteen " contains three dis- 
tinct and substantive propositions: First, the ad- 
mission of California. In this, as in eveiy other 
scheme of settlement tendered to the South, Cali- 
forn-ia in all her length and breadth, stands first. 
Secondly, we are offered territorial governments 
for New Mexico and Utah, (Deseret that was,) 
without the Wilmot proviso: and thirdly, we have 
a proposition to dismember Texas, by cutting off 
enough of her northern possessions to make four 
States as large as Mississippi, and for the privi- 
lege of doing this we are to pay millions of 

dollars. The suggestions for filling this blank 
have varied from five to fifteen millions of dollars. 

I have already suggested some reasons why the 
admissicn of California, as an independent propo- 
sition, ought not, in my judgment, to receive your 
sanction. I now propose to inquire whether the 
union of these three measures in one bill makes 
the whole, as a unit, more worthy of your consi- 
deration and support. All the objections to the 
admission of California stand outin the same force 
and vigor in Mr. Clay's bill as in all former propo- 
sitions for her admission. We are asked to make 
the same sacrifice of feeling and of principle which 
we have so often and so long protested we v/ould 
not make — unless indeed it shall be shown 
that we are getting a fair equivalent for these 
sacrifices. Mr. Clay has himself told us, in effect, 
that we were making these sacrifices. He has 
told us, as I remarked to you in another place, 
that California was not a State, and could not 
become so out of the Union. That, in truth, 
her constitution had no binding force, as a con- 
stitution, until the State was admitted into the 
Union. The constitution of California contains 
the anti-slavery clause, the " Wilmot proviso." 
But the constitution is a dead letter, so far as we 
are concerned. It has no vitality, no binding effect 
until the State is admitted. Congress admits her, 
And by the act of admission puts the proviso in 
force— gives it activity and life. Who, then, but 
Congress is responsible for the active, opera- 
tive " proviso — for that provisio which excludes 
you froni the country.' Congress and Congress 
alone is responsible. You can now understand 
more fully what I meant, when I signed a letter to 
his Excellency the Governor, saying, " that the 
adinission of California was equivalent to the 
adoption of the Wilmot proviso." The northern 
people understand this, and to a man they are for 
her admission. 

Tlie question now is, arc we offered any ade- 
quate consideration for making thi.s sacrifice 
of feeling and of principle? This is a question 
worthy of liie most serious and critical examina- 
tion. 

Ky the terms of the icsolutions, annexing Texas 
to the United Slates, it is expressly provided " that 
auch States as may be formed out of that portion of 
her territory lying South of purullel of.%" 30' north 
JBtitude, shall be admitted into the Union with or 



without slavery, as the people of each State asking 

admission may desire." And it is as expressly 
stipulated, that " in such State or STATEsas may 
be formed out of said territory lying ninth of that 
line slavery shall be prohibited." In pur.^uance 
of these resolutions Texas caine into tiie Union. 
The South consented to this arrangement, and to- 
day, as at all former periods, I am ready to abide 
by it. 

Examine these resolutions, and what do we find.' 
A clear and distinct recognition of the title of 
Texas to the country up to 36° 30', as slave ter- 
ritory, for it is stipulated that the people may deter- 
mine for themselves, at a proper time, whether sla- 
very shall orshall not exist in all the ciiuntry below 
that line. Nay more, the rights of Texas above 
this line are admitted; for it is expressly provided 
that in the State or States to be formed out of the 
territory north of 36° 30', slavery shall be pro- 
hibited, but not until such State or States ask ad- 
mission into the Union. We have, then, the clearest 
possible recognition of the title of Texas up to 
364° as slave territory, and to sufficient territory 
above that line to make one or more States. 

Now, what do we hear from the North .' That 
Texas never had any just claim to any part of this 
territory; that it always did, and does now belong 
to New Mexico. But, as Texas is a young sis- 
ter, and one with whom we should not deal 

harshly, we will give her millions of dollars 

for her imaginary claim. Mr. Benton, in the 
exuberance of his liberality, offers fifteen millions 
of dollars; and other gentlemen, less ardent, pro pose 
smaller sums. But our present dealing is with 
Mr. Clay's plan for a compromise. 

If the reader has a map, I beg that he will first 
trace the line of thirty-six degrees and thirty min- 
utes, north latitude; and then fix his eye on the 
northeastern boundary of Texas at the point 
where the one-hundredth parallel of longitude 
crosses the Red river; and, from this point, 
run a direct line to a point twenty miles above 
El Passo, on the Rio Grande; and between these 
two lines, he will have the slave terriloinj which 
Mr. Clay's compromise proposes to sell out. It 
will be seen, on comparison, that this territory is 
nearly twice as large as the State of Mississippi. 
Whether five or fifteen millions of dollars are 
given for it, it is needless to say we shall have to 
pay more than our due proportion of the money. 

To me, it is not a pleasant thing to sell out 
slave territory, and pay for it myself; and I con- 
fess that this much of the proposed bargain has 
not made the admission of California a whit more 
palatable to me. 

1 say nothing of Texas above 36° 30'; that 
country was virtually surrendered to abolition by 
the terms of the Texas annexation. If Texas 
thinks proper to give it or sell it to the Frce-Soil- 
ers, in advance of the time appointed for its sur- 
render, I make no objection. But all the South 
has a direct political interest in Texas below this 
line of 36° 30'; and I do not mean to surrender 
your interest without a fair equivalent. 

What is to be the destiny of this territory, if it 
is thus sold out, and what Its institutions.' It is 
to become an integral part of New Mexico, and I 
risk nothing in saying it will be dedicated to free 
.soil. Its institutions will be anti-slavery. If the 
character of the country was not to undergo a rad- 
ical change in ihi.? respect, ©r if this change was 



\ 



not confidently anticipated, we all know that the il 
northern motive for makins; this purchase would l! 
lose its existence. As the country now stands, it I 
js protected by the annexation resolutions against '' 
all congressional interference witli the question of 
slavciy. Transfer it to New Mexico, and we ex- 
pose il to ihc dangerous intermeddlins: which has 
60 long unhappily afflicted that and all our territo- 
rial popspssions. 

This brinjis me to the only remaining proposi- 
tion in Mr. Clay's compromise bill — that to estab- 
lish territorial governments for New Mexico and j; 
Utah, without the " Wilmot proviso." If this I 
were an independent proposition, tendered in good 
faith, and accepted by tlie North with a fixed pur- ! 
pose to abide liy it, 1 have no hesitation in saying 
it would receive my cordial support. 1 repeat ji 
what 1 have often said, that whilst I shall resist ,' 
the exclusion of slavery by congressional action, ; 
I have no purpose or design to force or fasten it | 
upon any countiy through the agency of Con- J 
gress. Whilst 1 demand that Congress shall not 
oppose our entrance into the territories with our ji 
Blaves, I do not ask it to assist us in going there. ,i 
All 1 ask is, that we may be treated as equals — ; 
that no insulting discrimination shall be drawn ii 
between southern and northern people — between 
southern properly and northern properly. 

How is this proposition regarded by the north- , 
em men to whom it is tendered, and by whom it 
may be accepted ? The spirit in which it is ac- 
cepted is a jiart of the res gista; and I therefore 
press the inquiry, in what light is the proposition j' 
regarded ? — in what spirit will it be accepted, if it ' 
is accepted at all, by northern men.' When 
we shall have answered this inquiry, it will be I 
seen whether there is leaven enough in this little 
lump to leaven the whole loaf. 

Mr. Webster is positive that we can never in- | 
trodure slaves into the territory. "The laws of 
God," he thinks, will forever forbid it. He, and 
those who go with him, will not vote for the " pro- > 
viso," because it is wuieccssary . They are op- 
posed, uncompromisingly opposed, to the intro- ' 
duclion of slaves into the territories; and they are 
ready to do anything that may be found necessary 
to keep them out. It is easy to see what they j 
will do, if we commence introducing our slaves, i 
They will at once say, " the laws of God" having 
feiled us, we must try what virtue there is in 
the " Wilmot proviso." Mr. Clay, and those 
who follow him, are quite certain that " we are 
already excluded by the laws of Mexico." They, i 
too, are opposed to the introduction of slavery into 
the territories, and stand ready to see it excluded. 
The northern men who stand out against the com- i 
promise, insist, and will continue to insist, on the 
Wilmot proviso, as the only certain guarantee that 
slavery will be permanently excluded. Ail, all 
are opposed to our going in with our slaves, and 
all are ready to employ whatever means may be 
necessary to keep us out. I assert tliefact distinclly 
und emphatically, that we are told every day that if 
we attempt to introduce our slaves at any time 
into New Mexico or Utah, there will be an im- 
mediate ap[ilicaiion of the " Wilmot proviso," to 
keep us out. Mark you, the proposition is to 
give territorial governments to New Mexico and 
Utah. Tliese are but congressional acts, and may 
be altered, amended, explained, or repealed, at 
pleasure. 



No one here undersUtnde that we are entering 
into a compact, and no northern man votds for this 
compromise, with the expectation or understanding 
that we are to take our slaves into the territories. 
Whatever additional legi.'?lation may be found ne- 
cessary hereafter to effect our perfect exclusion, 
we are given distinctly to understand will be re- 
sorted to. 

But there is yet another difficulty to be over- 
come, a more serious obstacle than either " the 
laws of God," as Mr. Webster understands them, 
or the Iaw3 of Mexico," as understood by Mr. 
Clay. In regard to the first, I think Mr. Webster 
is wholly mistaken, and if he is not, I am willing 
to submit; and in regard to the second, I take 
the ground, that when we conquered the Mexi- 
can people, we conquered their laws. But Mr. 
Clay's bill contains a provision as prohibitory as 
the " proviso" itself. The territorial legislature 
is denied the right to legislate at all in respect to 
African slavery. If a master's slave absconds, 
no law an be passed by which he may recover 
him. 1 ■ he is maimed, he can have no damages 
for the i; jury. If he is decoyed from his service, 
or harbored by a vicious neighbor, he is without 
remedy. A community of slaveholders may de- 
sire to make lav.'s adapted to their peculiar wants 
in this respect, but Congress, by this compromise 
of Mr. Clay's, denies them the right to do so. 
They shall not legislate in regard to African 
slavery. What now becomes of the hypocritical 
cant about the right of the people to regulate 
their own affairs in their own way ? 

With these facts before us, it becomes us to in- 
quire how much we give and how much we take 
in voting for Mr. Clay's bill. We admit Califor- 
nia, and, being once in, the question is settled so 
far as she is concerned. We can never get her 
out by any process short of a dissolution of the 
Union. We give up a part of pro-slavery Texas, 
and we give it beyond redemption and forever. 
i Our part of the bargain is binding. Our follies 
! may rise up and mock us in after times, but we 
' can never escape their effects. This much we 
' give; now what do we take .' We get a government 
for New Mexico and Utah, without the Wilmot 
proviso, but with a declaration that we are exclu- 
! ded already " by the laws ef God and the Mexican 
\ nation,''^ or get it with a prohibition against terri- 
I torial legislation on the subject of slavery, and with 
a distinct threat constantly hanging over us that if 
we attempt to introduce slaves against these pro- 
< hibitions, the "Wilmot proviso" will be instantly 
applied for our more effectual exclusion. 
' Such is the compromise. Such is the proposed 
' bargain. Can you, fellow-citizens, expect me to 
i vote for it.' Will you demand of your Represent- 
I ative to assist in binding you hand and foot, and 
' turning you over to the tender mercies of the Free- 
Soilers ? 

It is said, we can get nothing better than this. 

But is that any sufficient reason why we should vote 

for it ourselves .' If I am beset with robbers, who 

i are resolved on assassination, must I needs lay vio- 

IJ lent hands on myself.' or if my friend is in ex- 

I tremes, must I strangle him .' We can get nothing 
i better, forsooth ! In God's name can we get any- 
thing worse? It is said that if we r^ject this, they 

': will paas the " Wilmot proviso." Let them pae« 
] it; it will not be more galling than this. If the 

II proviso fails to challenge our respect, it at least 



\ 



rises above our contempt. If it ever passes it will 
be the act of the American Congress — of men 
'earned in the law, and familiar with the abstruse 
readings of the Coristitiuion. h will he. done de- 
liberately, and after full reflectiou. It will not be 
done by adventurers on the shores of the Pacific, 
who seem to know but little of our Constitution or 
laws, and to care less for our rights. 

I have heard it said that it will be dangerous to 
reject the application of California for admission 
into the Union. Already she is threatening to set 
up for herself, and if we reject her she will with- 
draw her application and establish herself as an 
independent Republic on the Pacific. Let her try 
it.- We have been told that if the South refuse 
to submit to the galling insults and outrageous 
wrongs of the North, the President will call out 
the naval and military power of the nation, and 
reduce us to submission. When California asserts 
her independence, and sets up her Republic on the 
Pacific, we shall see h»w quick the President will 
be to use this same military and naval force, in 
bringing her back to her allegiance. These threats 
bave no terrors for me. 

As I could respect the reckless and bold robber 
who, unmasked, presents his pistol and demands 
cny money or my life, above the petty, but expert 
pickpocket, who looks complaisantly in rny face 
while he steals my purse, — so can I respect the 
dashing, and dare-devil impudence of the Wilmot 
proviso, which robs the South, and takes the re- 
sponsibility, above the little, low, cunnine, slight- 
of-hand scheme, which robs us just as effectually, 



I and leaves ua wondering how the trick waa per- 
formed. 

So long as 1 remain in your service, fellow-citi- 
zens, I will represent you faithfully, according to 
my best judgment. In great emergencies like this, 
I feel the need of your counsel and support. It 
would give me pain, if any important vote of mine 
should fail to meet your approbation. Whilst I 
shall never follow blindly any man's lead, nor 
suffer myself to be awed by any general outcry, 
I confess myself not insensible to the applause of 
my countrymen. In a great crisis like the present, 
men must act, responsibility must be taken, and he 
is not fit to be trusted who stops in the discharge 
of his high duties to count his personal costs. 

I cannot vote for Mr. Clay's compromise bill. 
With very essential changes and modifications, I 
might be reconciled to its support. These I have 
no hope of obtaining, and I therefore expect to vote 
against it. Like the fatal Missouri compromise, 
it gives up everything and obtains nothing; and 
liiic that and all other compromises with the North, 
it will be observed, and its provisions maintained, 
just so long as it suits the views of northern men 
to observe and maintain them, and then they will 
be unscrupulou.5ly abandoned. 

it will give me great pleasure tu find myself 
sustained by my constituents, in the votes I intend 
to give. My head, my heart, my every thought 
and impulse admonish me that I am right, and 1 
cannot doubt or hesitate. 

Your fellow-citizen, A. G. BROWN. 

Washington City, May 13, 1850. 



Printed at the Congressional Globe Office, 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



Hi mil mil mil II 

011 932 923 i 



(^ 



HOI 
P 



